Connect with us

Politics

Silicon Valley billionaires put plans for new California city on hold

Published

on

Silicon Valley billionaires put plans for new California city on hold

The tech billionaires backing a proposal to raise a brand-new city on the rolling prairie northeast of San Francisco Bay have agreed to pull their measure off the November ballot and will first fund a full environmental review of the project, officials announced Monday.

The pause — announced in a joint statement from a Solano County supervisor and the chief executive of California Forever, the group backing the development — marks a dramatic shift in what had been a relentless push to build a city from scratch in rural Solano County. Until recently, California Forever, whose roster includes tech giants such as LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, appeared set on taking the proposal directly to local voters this fall.

In June, after the group spent millions of dollars on a signature-gathering campaign, the county registrar announced the measure had qualified for the November ballot, despite opposition from many local elected officials. At the time, Jan Sramek, the former Goldman Sachs trader who is leading the effort, said the measure was nothing less than “a referendum on what do we want the future of California to be.”

Then, on Monday morning, an about-face: California Forever announced it would withdraw the measure. Instead, the group will follow the normal county process for zoning changes for the nearly 18,000-acre swath of land proposed for development. That includes funding a full environmental impact review and reimbursing the county for staff time and consultants related to the venture, according to the joint statement issued by Sramek and Mitch Mashburn, chair of the Solano County Board of Supervisors.

While “the need for more affordable housing and good paying jobs has merit, the timing has been unrealistic,” Mashburn said in the statement. California Forever’s rush to the ballot without an environmental review and negotiated development agreement “was a mistake,” he added. “This politicized the entire project, made it difficult for us and our staff to work with them, and forced everyone in our community to take sides.”

Advertisement

In his portion of the statement, Sramek, CEO of California Forever, stressed that his investment group remains committed to the project and feels an urgency to get it done. “For every year we delay, thousands of Solano parents miss more mornings, recitals, and bedtime stories because they’re commuting two hours for work. They cannot get those magical moments back.”

“We want to show that it’s possible to move faster in California,” Sramek said. “But we recognize now that it’s possible to reorder these steps without impacting our ambitious timeline.”

He said his group would work with the county to complete an environmental review and development agreement over the next two years, then bring the package back to local voters for approval in 2026.

In an interview with The Times, Sramek said the decision to pull the ballot measure was made after it became clear that Solano County residents wanted a thorough environmental review process. He said he was confident the decision to “invert the order of the steps” — putting the environmental review and development agreement before taking the question to voters — would lead to a better outcome.

“It’s not going to affect the timeline,” he said. “In fact, it might accelerate it.”

Advertisement

The shift also gives California Forever time to reset with local residents after the group’s rocky introduction to Solano County politics.

The effort, launched under a cloak of secrecy, became ensnared in controversy last year amid unfounded speculation that the land buyers were foreign agents intent on espionage.

That’s because for years before proponents revealed their plans, they used a limited liability company called Flannery Associates to buy up land from farmers in a vast swath of the county, stretching from Rio Vista west toward Travis Air Force Base, without telling anyone why. News of the mysterious land sales, in an area so close to a crucial military installation, led some people to speculate it might be part of an effort by foreign spies to gain military secrets.

Last year, it was revealed instead as a bold plan to build a model city from the ground up and reinvent how housing is built in California.

In January, Sramek unveiled blueprints of the new community that call for tens of thousands of homes surrounded by open space and trails. California Forever showcased the community’s proximity to the San Francisco Bay Area, vowing the project would convert unused farmland into “middle-class neighborhoods with homes we can afford.” The city would be walkable, socioeconomically integrated and fueled by clean energy.

Advertisement

But the proposal garnered fierce early opposition from some local leaders, concerned the group was making an end run around the planning process, as well as environmental groups concerned about the loss of natural habitat.

Mashburn said his agreement with Sramek came after tough conversations about how the process had gone so far.

“We talked about Solano County, and we talked about the initiative, and we talked about the future, and the way things were going to look, and the processes that we would have to go through, and whether we wanted to do that amicably and have a county where neighbors weren’t fighting with neighbors,” Mashburn said.

“Much to his credit and to their credit, they agreed with that. That’s not an easy thing to do, for a leader to admit that you may have been wrong about something.”

The decision to pull the ballot measure came a day before the Board of Supervisors was scheduled to discuss a consultant’s report, commissioned by the county, on the potential fiscal impacts of the development and to vote on whether to put the initiative before voters in November.

Advertisement

The report, prepared by Stantec Consulting Services in Walnut Creek, questioned the financial viability of the proposed new city and predicted construction challenges that could lead to hefty deficits for the county. It estimated the price tag for constructing schools, roads, sewer systems and other infrastructure to support the new community at tens of billions of dollars.

In announcing the new timeline, Mashburn issued a challenge to the California Forever investors, calling on them to show how they would provide water, solve transportation challenges and navigate the “financial engineering that makes it possible to pay for billions of dollars of infrastructure” without increasing taxes.

Asked if he believed Sramek and his backers would eventually build their dream city in his county, Mashburn said he was skeptical it would turn out exactly as the tech titans envisioned.

“We’re starting over from scratch,” he said. “There are some incredible obstacles that have to be overcome.”

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

Published

on

Video: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

new video loaded: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

transcript

transcript

Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

Federal prosecutors opened an investigation into whether Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, lied to Congress about the scope of renovations of the central bank’s buildings. He called the probe “unprecedented” in a rare video message.

“Good evening. This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings. This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions, or whether instead, monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation.” “Well, thank you very much. We’re looking at the construction. Thank you.”

Advertisement
Federal prosecutors opened an investigation into whether Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, lied to Congress about the scope of renovations of the central bank’s buildings. He called the probe “unprecedented” in a rare video message.

By Nailah Morgan

January 12, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

San Antonio ends its abortion travel fund after new state law, legal action

Published

on

San Antonio ends its abortion travel fund after new state law, legal action

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

San Antonio has shut down its out-of-state abortion travel fund after a new Texas law that prohibits the use of public funds to cover abortions and a lawsuit from the state challenging the city’s fund.

City Council members last year approved $100,000 for its Reproductive Justice Fund to support abortion-related travel, prompting Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to sue over allegations that the city was “transparently attempting to undermine and subvert Texas law and public policy.”

Paxton claimed victory in the lawsuit on Friday after the case was dismissed without a finding for either side.

WYOMING SUPREME COURT RULES LAWS RESTRICTING ABORTION VIOLATE STATE CONSTITUTION

Advertisement

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton claimed victory in the lawsuit after the case was dismissed without a finding for either side. (Hannah Beier/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“Texas respects the sanctity of unborn life, and I will always do everything in my power to prevent radicals from manipulating the system to murder innocent babies,” Paxton said in a statement. “It is illegal for cities to fund abortion tourism with taxpayer funds. San Antonio’s unlawful attempt to cover the travel and other expenses for out-of-state abortions has now officially been defeated.”

But San Antonio’s city attorney argued that the city did nothing wrong and pushed back on Paxton’s claim that the state won the lawsuit.

“This litigation was both initiated and abandoned by the State of Texas,” the San Antonio city attorney’s office said in a statement to The Texas Tribune. “In other words, the City did not drop any claims; the State of Texas, through the Texas Office of the Attorney General, dropped its claims.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said he will continue opposing the use of public funds for abortion-related travel. (Justin Lane/Reuters)

Advertisement

Paxton’s lawsuit argued that the travel fund violates the gift clause of the Texas Constitution. The state’s 15th Court of Appeals sided with Paxton and granted a temporary injunction in June to block the city from disbursing the fund while the case moved forward.

Gov. Greg Abbott in August signed into law Senate Bill 33, which bans the use of public money to fund “logistical support” for abortion. The law also allows Texas residents to file a civil suit if they believe a city violated the law.

“The City believed the law, prior to the passage of SB 33, allowed the uses of the fund for out-of-state abortion travel that were discussed publicly,” the city attorney’s office said in its statement. “After SB 33 became law and no longer allowed those uses, the City did not proceed with the procurement of those specific uses—consistent with its intent all along that it would follow the law.”

TRUMP URGES GOP TO BE ‘FLEXIBLE’ ON HYDE AMENDMENT, IGNITING BACKLASH FROM PRO-LIFE ALLIES

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a law in August that blocks cities from using public money to help cover travel or other costs related to abortion. (Antranik Tavitian/Reuters)

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The broader Reproductive Justice Fund remains, but it is restricted to non-abortion services such as home pregnancy tests, emergency contraception and STI testing.

The city of Austin also shut down its abortion travel fund after the law was signed. Austin had allocated $400,000 to its Reproductive Healthcare Logistics Fund in 2024 to help women traveling to other states for an abortion with funding for travel, food and lodging.

Continue Reading

Politics

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta opts against running for governor. Again.

Published

on

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta opts against running for governor. Again.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced Sunday that he would not run for California governor, a decision grounded in his belief that his legal efforts combating the Trump administration as the state’s top prosecutor are paramount at this moment in history.

“Watching this dystopian horror come to life has reaffirmed something I feel in every fiber of my being: in this moment, my place is here — shielding Californians from the most brazen attacks on our rights and our families,” Bonta said in a statement. “My vision for the California Department of Justice is that we remain the nation’s largest and most powerful check on power.”

Bonta said that President Trump’s blocking of welfare funds to California and the fatal shooting of a Minnesota mother of three last week by a federal immigration agent cemented his decision to seek reelection to his current post, according to Politico, which first reported that Bonta would not run for governor.

Bonta, 53, a former state lawmaker and a close political ally to Gov. Gavin Newsom, has served as the state’s top law enforcement official since Newsom appointed him to the position in 2021. In the last year, his office has sued the Trump administration more than 50 times — a track record that would probably have served him well had he decided to run in a state where Trump has lost three times and has sky-high disapproval ratings.

Advertisement

Bonta in 2024 said that he was considering running. Then in February he announced he had ruled it out and was focused instead on doing the job of attorney general, which he considers especially important under the Trump administration. Then, both former Vice President Kamala Harris and Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) announced they would not run for governor, and Bonta began reconsidering, he said.

“I had two horses in the governor’s race already,” Bonta told The Times in November. “They decided not to get involved in the end. … The race is fundamentally different today, right?”

The race for California governor remains wide open. Newsom is serving the final year of his second term and is barred from running again because of term limits. Newsom has said he is considering a run for president in 2028.

Former Rep. Katie Porter — an early leader in polls — late last year faltered after videos emerged of her screaming at an aide and berating a reporter. The videos contributed to her dropping behind Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican, in a November poll released by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times.

Porter rebounded a bit toward the end of the year, a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California showed, however none of the candidates has secured a majority of support and many voters remain undecided.

Advertisement

California hasn’t elected a Republican governor since 2006, Democrats heavily outnumber Republicans in the state, and many are seething with anger over Trump and looking for Democratic candidates willing to fight back against the current administration.

Bonta has faced questions in recent months about spending about $468,000 in campaign funds on legal advice last year as he spoke to federal investigators about alleged corruption involving former Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, who was charged in an alleged bribery scheme involving local businessmen David Trung Duong and Andy Hung Duong. All three have pleaded not guilty.

According to his political consultant Dan Newman, Bonta — who had received campaign donations from the Duong family — was approached by investigators because he was initially viewed as a “possible victim” in the alleged scheme, though that was later ruled out. Bonta has since returned $155,000 in campaign contributions from the Duong family, according to news reports.

Bonta is the son of civil rights activists Warren Bonta, a white native Californian, and Cynthia Bonta, a native of the Philippines who immigrated to the U.S. on a scholarship in 1965. Bonta, a U.S. citizen, was born in Quezon City, Philippines, in 1972, when his parents were working there as missionaries, and immigrated with his family to California as an infant.

In 2012, Bonta was elected to represent Oakland, Alameda and San Leandro as the first Filipino American to serve in California’s Legislature. In Sacramento, he pursued a string of criminal justice reforms and developed a record as one of the body’s most liberal members.

Advertisement

Bonta is married to Assemblywoman Mia Bonta (D-Alameda), who succeeded him in the state Assembly, and the couple have three children.

Times staff writer Dakota Smith contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Trending